02
Mar
08

Foaming at the Mouth for UHC

UHC RabiesAmerica seems to be frothing at the mouth when it comes to getting Universal Health Care (socialized medicine). And I agree, they should be frothing at the mouth due to the current state of our health care. But in my opinion, they would be much better off saving their bodily fluids for a return to the free-market health care system.

I think most Americans realize that our health care is pretty poopy right now. Insurance companies doing as they wish – charging whatever they want and insuring who they want, when they want. Anyone who does not recognize that our health care system is in the commode right now… probably has their hands in the money coffer. However, I cannot understand for the life of me, why the average American is running around singing hymns and bowing at the feet of those who are offering up UHC. I have come to the conclusion that most people out there simply don’t know much about how we got to where are now and the current status of other UHC systems in place.
I would guess that most people recognize the benefits of the free market system when presented a case to examine. For example, when cell phones came out, they were the size of a cinder block, cost >$400, and had to be plugged into your car most the time. Today, you can walk into almost any cell carrier and get a phone for free. The market found out that if they lowered prices, that more people would buy cell phones. Then they figured out that if they made them smaller, that even more people would buy them. Then they figured out that if they added color screens (cameras, free roaming, replaceable face plates, play music, watch TV, etc.) that even more people would buy them.
So what does that have to do with health care? Well, with the cell phone, the market was exposed directly to the consumer. The consumer made (demanded in a way) that the prices fall, that they get better coverage, and that their phones were cooler. With health care the market is not directly exposed to the consumer. No, as it is now, most of us walk in and pay our co-pay for the doctor and then our co-pay for medicine, and then we go home. There is no demand for lower prices or better service in the health care system. Our health care plans shield us from the real costs. The only time we will see those costs are if we start paying cash for services or the insurance company dumps us and we are left with Mt. Everest sized bill.
Bottom line is this… we will not see our health care get any better unless we demand it. If we go to a UHC type program, we will not be able to demand anything. We will pay our money to the government for health care and the government will give us healthcare XYZ. What if you don’t like your health care? Well, too bad, welcome to universal health care. What they (the government) decide you get, you get.
Think about it!
For more information, go check out this article at Free Market Cure.
Advertisements

7 Responses to “Foaming at the Mouth for UHC”


  1. 1 DJ
    4 March 2008 at 04:00

    And don’t be old and a new hip, or a heart bypass, you won’t livelong enough for those procedures to be cost effective. Whats next, the pregnancy police going to come by and decide you an not have kids because your family history has to many health problems? The country can’t afford to keep your offspring healthy? I know,I know, “That will never happen” YA know, “they” said the same thing about prohibition, and that the Titanic was unsinkable! Think about it, that s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

  2. 2 Publius
    4 March 2008 at 21:54

    I would love to chime in here as well, but I work full time and onl have a few hours a week to spend with my girl friend, if you keep this thread open, perhaps we can debate the UHC merits after the 16th amendment topic is closed.

  3. 3 Kyle Huwer
    4 March 2008 at 22:09

    This thread will remain open indefinitely….

  4. 4 Publius
    11 March 2008 at 13:09

    Thank-you.

  5. 5 Matt Fahey
    4 December 2008 at 11:43

    I enjoyed the video, it is rather informative on the matter. I believe our healthcare system is in need of a series of reforms and making it universal is in my opinion not the answer. Just look at the Brit’s teeth. With a universal healthcare system the middle class would end up paying the entire bill. Since conservatives and liberals have oppositely charged ideas on who should pay taxes the burden would fall in the middle. It angered me to see that some people can afford to pay the insurance but would rather go out to clubs and spend immense portions of their incomes on dining and such. And then to see them expect to receive healthcare when they are in need of it is ludicrous. Personally it is my opinion that if you don’t have insurance or are unable/unwilling to pay the bill you should not be able to receive the treatment. Of course emergency care should be given for instance in the case of automobile accidents or other immediate life threatening scenarios. There are programs in place for people who don’t have insurance like Wal-mart’s $4 dollar plan. If you cannot scrape up $4 dollars you probably couldn’t get the doctor office visit in the first place. I could find $4 dollars in my couch.

  6. 6 Reality
    5 October 2009 at 00:01

    1. Cellphones were not “exposed” to the consumer. Cellphone technology, like all technology, is constantly shrinking in both size and production cost as more advanced technology replaces it. Insurance companies ARE protected in the way they do business, but it’s not like any consumer demand is going to change the way they operate: they have a good system going that is legally-backed and, unless new legislation were implemented, that is not going to change.

    2. Originally, there was no talk of UHC, it was to have a government OPTION in ADDITION to all the private models out there. We already have welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, etc. this is not any different than other similar American policy. However, the one thing that is different is that by having an economical and cheaper plan, Insurance Agencies would be forced to compete for the lower options. It’s almost identical to what you were talking about with cellphones and what were you wishing would happen with insurance companies, but since “the Left” is proposing it, it doesn’t seem to sit well with you.

    3. Just as companies give you benefits, being a citizen of a country should entitle you to certain “perks”. Your tax-dollars are supposedly going towards things like infrastructure and security, why not health? Why is more logical to pay for a bureau of “Homeland Security” instead of a Universal Health OPTION when you are more likely to get into a car-crash or to contract a fatal disease than you are to die in a terrorist attack?

  7. 5 October 2009 at 03:02

    @Reality: Hi and welcome to my blog.

    1. Cellphones were not “exposed” to the consumer. Cellphone technology, like all technology, is constantly shrinking in both size and production cost as more advanced technology replaces it. Insurance companies ARE protected in the way they do business, but it’s not like any consumer demand is going to change the way they operate: they have a good system going that is legally-backed and, unless new legislation were implemented, that is not going to change.

    I am not sure what you mean by that cell phones were not exposed to the consumer. I am not that old, but I remember my father getting a “cell phone” that had to be plugged into the car and had a battery life of about 20 minutes off the car charger. It was litterally the size of a cinder block and had absolutely horrible sound and cost $80 a month for 120 minutes and the phone itself cost $450.

    Today, I can get a phone for $450 and pay $80 per month and I can have free nights and weekends, 800 anytime minutes, 5 people whos time never accumulates (i.e. T-Mobiles MyFaves Plan), I can surf the web, unlimited text messages, take pictures, receive movies/pictures, call long distance, the screen is touch screen, and I have a full keyboard.

    In my world, things have progressed and they progressed because people incrementially demanded that they were given more than they received last time. Or that they paid less for the same service. This, my friend, is exposure to the consumer.

    I do think that you are confused if you believe that insurance companies are isolated and protected. Have you ever shopped for insurance of any type? Mind you, health insurance is not the only insurance. Take for instance car insurance. I have shopped around my entire driving life. I remember paying exhorborent amounts because of my age and my gender. But as time went on and I became “more reliable” and my record remained clean, I switched. I switched because someone else offered me the same coverage for less money.

    Do you ignore this case of insurance or do you specifically think that health insurance has some sort of magic shroud where consumer competition cannot affect it?

    2. Originally, there was no talk of UHC, it was to have a government OPTION in ADDITION to all the private models out there. We already have welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, etc. this is not any different than other similar American policy. However, the one thing that is different is that by having an economical and cheaper plan, Insurance Agencies would be forced to compete for the lower options. It’s almost identical to what you were talking about with cellphones and what were you wishing would happen with insurance companies, but since “the Left” is proposing it, it doesn’t seem to sit well with you.

    UHC has been proposed upon for years. This is nothing new and nothing that hasn’t been shot down. And as it is now, the option is being shot down too.

    So your argument for UHC (or the option) is because we have other government ran programs? If this is so, then you would make a good German citizen in the 1940s! “Well, the government is already doing something, why let them do something else.” This is bologna and I hope that you come back to backtrack on this point or to correct the record.

    You are right! Compete for lower price options. Hm, sounds just like how I was explaining how the free-market works in other arenas (cell phones, car insurance, etc). And somehow those sectors do it without the government. Man, I am baffled. So if they can do it, why does the government have to step in here? Please explain to me why the government is the only option.

    As for it being identical, it’s not. It’s not because one is ran by the government and it has laws enforcing it. One is a free-market and one is a government-intervened market. Also, one is paid for by tax dollars and enforced by penalities while the other goes with the laws of supply-and-demand. In my opinion, big difference.

    I don’t care who is proposing it. It is a violation of my freedom. It is unConstitutional. And if you think that it is Constitutional, then find me where it says that we are to provide care for all Americans (hint: it’s not the General Welfare clause. If you think that is it, then you are unfamiliar with the Constitution in that regard).

    3. Just as companies give you benefits, being a citizen of a country should entitle you to certain “perks”.

    Oh you are so right. I think that anyone that is a citizen should also drive a BMW. BMWs are a very safe car and have a lot of anemeties so therefore I think everyone should have one. I also think that we should pay people a minumum of $40/hr no matter what service they provide. No wait, make that $60/hr…. er… $80/hr… Well, let’s just make it whatever per hour so that we all feel rich and can gather by the fire to sing Kumbayah. I also think we should give everyone a house with a room for each person. Heaven-forbid we make kids grow up in the same room as their sibling.

    Are there any other perks we should give out?

    Your tax-dollars are supposedly going towards things like infrastructure and security, why not health? Why is more logical to pay for a bureau of “Homeland Security” instead of a Universal Health OPTION when you are more likely to get into a car-crash or to contract a fatal disease than you are to die in a terrorist attack?

    Supposedly. Good choice of words.

    (link here) Well, for 2010 we are budgeted for $901B for military security. I don’t have time to look up “infrastructure” so lets just go with “other” at $24B. Already we spend $452B on Medicare and $290 on Medicaid. So all of this comes to $1,667B. The total monies brought in (all receipts) was 2,330B. This is a difference of $663B and that is not even counting in what we spend on veteran benefits, social security, and national security discretionary. So with an increase of health care spending, where does that put us on our deficit? We are supposed to insure 40M more people with no increase in health care spending? Really?

    You are right, you are more likely to die in a car-crash than a terrorist attack. If you have read my blog elsewhere, you would know that I am far from a supporter of many government agencies. However, I don’t think we can axe entire agencies just because the “odds are better” to die than another death. I mean, you are more likely to eat too much and choke than to die in a terrorist attack – so do you propose that we make it mandatory that we all go in and get hooked up to IVs so that we don’t choke? Etc. Etc. Etc.

    And lastly, you keep saying OPTION. What option? I know at least HR3200 had a provision where if you did not opt-in, you were fined. Or if your employer did not provide insurance, then you were fined. If it is a opti-in or get fined, in my world, that is not a choice.

    Also read my entry entitled Where’s The Money Coming From? about someone’s same supicion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: